From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bbbeae4ed07e9626
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Address to function pointer conversion
Date: 1997/06/20
Message-ID: <dewar.866852244@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251465760
References: <5nrq5h$13cm@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <33A1831C.269F@sprintmail.com> <dewar.866334558@merv>
 <33A74403.4B7C@sprintmail.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



John said

<<Thank you Robert, that answers my question.  I didn't know whether this
pragma was available for access-to-subprogram types.  (I was making an
informed guess.)
 >>

It is obviously not *required* to be available, but it likely will work fine.
If it is rejected, this is a red flag that the interface will not work.